What We Talk About When We Talk About Sideloading
This is a cross-posting of an article I wrote for the F-Droid blog at: https://f-droid.org/en/2025/10/28/sideloading.html ↗. As well as managing the App Fair Project, I also serve on the F-Droid board of directors.
We recently published a blog post with our reaction to the new Google Developer Program and how it impacts your freedom to use the devices that you own in the ways that you want. The post garnered quite a lot of feedback and interest from the community and press, as well as various civil society groups and regulatory agencies.
In this post, I hope to clarify and expand on some of the points and rebut some of the counter-messaging that we have witnessed.
Google’s message that “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false
Section titled “Google’s message that “Sideloading is Not Going Away” is clear, concise, and false”Shortly after our post was published, Google aired an episode ↗ of their Android Developers Roundtable series, where they state unequivocally that “sideloading isn’t going anywhere”. They follow-up with a blog post ↗:
Does this mean sideloading is going away on Android? Absolutely not. Sideloading is fundamental to Android and it is not going away.
This statement is untrue. The developer verification decree effectively ends the ability for individuals to choose what software they run on the devices they own.
It bears reminding that “sideload” is a made-up term. Putting software on your computer is simply called “installing”, regardless of whether that computer is in your pocket or on your desk. This could perhaps be further precised as “direct installing”, in case you need to make a distinction between obtaining software the old-fashioned way versus going through a rent-seeking intermediary marketplace like the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store.
Regardless, the term “sideload” was coined to insinuate that there is something dark and sinister about the process, as if the user were making an end-run around safeguards that are designed to keep you protected and secure. But if we reluctantly accept that “sideloading” is a term that has wriggled its way into common parlance, then we should at least use a consistent definition for it. Wikipedia’s summary definition ↗ is:
the transfer of apps from web sources that are not vendor-approved
By this definition, Google’s statement that “sideloading is not going away” is simply false. The vendor — Google, in the case of Android certified devices — will, in point of fact, be approving the source. The supplicant app developer must register with Google, pay a fee, provide government identification, agree to non-negotiable (and ever-changing) terms and conditions, enumerate all their current and future application identifiers, upload evidence of their private signing key, and then hope and wait for Google’s approval.
What this means for your rights
Section titled “What this means for your rights”You, the consumer, purchased your Android device believing in Google’s promise that it was an open computing platform and that you could run whatever software you choose on it. Instead, starting next year, they will be non-consensually pushing an update to your operating system that irrevocably blocks this right and leaves you at the mercy of their judgement over what software you are permitted to trust.
You, the creator, can no longer develop an app and share it directly with your friends, family, and community without first seeking Google’s approval. The promise of Android — and a marketing advantage it has used to distinguish itself against the iPhone — has always been that it is “open”. But Google clearly feels that they have enough of a lock on the Android ecosystem, along with sufficient regulatory capture, that they can now jettison this principle with prejudice and impunity.
You, the state, are ceding the rights of your citizens and your own digital sovereignty to a company with a track record of complying with the extrajudicial demands of authoritarian regimes to remove perfectly legal apps that they happen to dislike. The software that is critical to the running of your businesses and governments will be at the mercy of the opaque whims of a distant and unaccountable corporation. Monocultures are perilous not just in agriculture, but in software distribution as well.
As a reminder, this applies not just to devices that exclusively use the Google Play Store: this is for every Android Certified device everywhere in the world, which encompasses over 95% of all Android devices outside of China. Regardless of whether the device owner prefers to use a competing app store like the Samsung Galaxy Store or the Epic Games Store, or a free and open-source app repository like F-Droid, they will be captive to the overarching policies unilaterally dictated by a competing corporate entity.
The place of greater safety
Section titled “The place of greater safety”In promoting their developer registration program, Google purports ↗:
Our recent analysis found over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play.
We haven’t seen this recent analysis — or any other supporting evidence — but the “50 times” multiple does certainly sound like great cause for distress (even if it is a surprisingly round number). But given the recent news ↗ of “224 malicious apps removed from the Google Play Store after ad fraud campaign discovered”, we are left to wonder whether their energies might better be spent assessing and improving their own safeguards rather than casting vague disparagements against the software development communities that thrive outside their walled garden.
In addition, other recent news ↗ of over 19 million downloads of malware from the Play Store leads us to question whether the sole judgement of a single corporate entity can be trusted to identify and assess malware, especially when that judgement is clouded by commercial incentives that may not align with the well-being of their users.
What can be done?
Section titled “What can be done?”Google has been facing public outcry against their heavy-handed policies for a long time, but this trend has accelerated recently. Last year they crippled ad-blockers ↗ in Chrome and Chromium-based browsers by forcing through their unpopular “manifest v3” requirement for plugins, and earlier this year they closed off ↗ the development of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which is how they were able to clandestinely implement the verification infrastructure that enforces their developer registration decree.
Developer verification is an existential threat to free software distribution platforms like F-Droid as well as emergent commercial competitors to the Play Store. We are witnessing a groundswell of opposition to this attempt from both our user and developer communities, as well as the tech press and civil society groups, but public policymakers still need to be educated about the threat.
To learn more about what you can do as a consumer, visit keepandroidopen.org ↗ for information on how to contact your representative agencies and advocate for keeping the Android ecosystem open for consumers and competition.
If you are an app developer, we recommend against signing yourself up for Google’s developer registration program at this time. We unequivocally reject their attempt to force this program upon the world.
Over half of all humankind uses an Android smartphone. Google does not own your phone. You own your phone. You have the right to decide who to trust, and where you can get your software from.